The draft National Education Policy 2019(henceforthDNEP)is in public domain for wider discussionby stakeholders. The College ofEducation, Srinagar ( in new avataras cluster university) organized a paneldiscussion on the draft and the author of this column happened to be one of thespeakers. There were three panelson school, higher and teacher education aspects of the draft. Manyvaluable suggestions /recommendations emanated from the ground and hopefullyshall be forwarded to relevant institutions. The draft report needs to bedebated at all levels and it augurs well that the date for suggestions on thedraft has been extended up-to the end of July 2019. Be that as it may Kapil Sibal,s thoughtless reaction asHRDC minister in UPA1 ministry that “i will do to higher education whatMamohan Singh did to economy” led to an era in Indian higher educationsystem which saw state commitment to public education highly diluted. Theminister was shifted from HRDC but thechaos and lopsided thinking on education in general and higher education inparticular continues. In this write-up analysis shall be limited to the corecomponent of public education in the special context of DNEP.
The current education policy was drafted in 1986 and revisedin 1992 and hence there is need for revisiting the entire landscape ofeducation so as to catch up with requirements of twenty first century. This isnecessitated also by arrival of new actors viz private and foreign players on the scene. Earlier TSR Subramaniancommittee submitted its report 2018 which has found an echo in DHEP as well. Some leading academics have already commentedupon DHEP report .Eminent sociologist Satish Deshpande claims that “it is a shock for academicswho are used to reports not based on ground realities”. The policy hastwenty years vision and the same is explained in the report as “bringingin proper alignment between aspirational goals of twenty first century education consistent with India’s,traditions and values”. My belief is that nation-building project inpost-colonial India was explained and delivered to citizens through the instrumentality of publiceducation which led to establishment of great institutions by the state. Thispublic commitment found a policy shift after the 1990 economic reforms in India. The DNHE policy claims that benefits of educationcannot be viewed in economic terms asfar as goals of democracy, equitable society and cultural vibrancy areconcerned. The idea that DHEP considersall financial support and spend on education as investment and not as expenditure opens a space for widerdebate on status of public education in India in the context of DHEP. In thiscontext we need to keep four essential issues in focus in order to understand the commitment of Indian state to public education.
First, the DNHE policy envisions significant increase inpublic investment in education. This per report would go upfrom the current 10 percent of overallpublic expenditure in education to 20 percent over a period of 10 years. In the estimation of committeepublic expenditure is not restricted to funds by central and state governmentsfrom their revenue but also includes funds deployed by public sectorcorporations as a part of their CSR efforts in line with the companies Act ,2013.The policy makers need tounderstand that public education has as its basic mediator the people and notthe government. It makes sense when K kasturirangan committee states in verysimple words that “financial autonomy does not mean cut in funding butrather the freedom to decide how best to spend funds to maximize educationalattainments”. This policy stance is not a puzzle in a globalizing world. The fact is that Germany and Swedenare both capitalist countries but the higher education falls outside theinfluence of market forces. This also holds true for Canada as well.
Second, thecommittee’s recommendation however, iscontrary to not so secret policy of privatization and market- friendlypractices such as increasedcompetition,ranking,self-financing andeducational loans practiced by thestate. The data and general direction ofpractice of policy also is suggestiveof decline in state funding of educationin India. The union budget for (2015-16) has reduced funds for HE to the tuneof Rs 3900 crore. Government spending on education has declined from 4.7percent in (2013-14) to 3.65 percent in(2016-17).Surprisingly there is underfunding of primary and childdevelopment projects also ignoring its significance in an unequalsociety. The allocation for the integrated child development services (ICDS) scheme fell by 6.5 percent in 2015-16 andfurther in 2016-17.The centre has also reduced its share in the SSA from 65percent to 60 percent (PIB 2015). The state governments laboring under financial stress have added to thechaos. In 2017 the Uttar Pradesh government reduced budgetary funds by 42percent for secondary schools and by 90 percent for colleges. Sudhanshu Bhushanof National Institute of Educational planning and Administration(NEPA) states :”previous draft of NEP bore the imprint of a veteran burucrat. (TSRSubramanian) and second that of a space scientist(kasturirangan) makesinteresting to see how the final political draft gets prepared. It mightcontain a synthesis in a manner that in the garb of autonomy the real practiceswill be intensified in favor of the market”(EPW june15, 2019).
Third, it shall remain a matter of great curiosity for academics and more particularlyparents as to how public funding ofeducation as contemplated in draft policy is segregated from student-centric resource generation. Publicuniversities have embarked on the process of internal resource generation whichhas acquired numerous forms viz,creation of special seats for non-resident Indians, starting of vocationalcourses, fee hike – enhancing admission, examination, sports and youth welfarerelated charges ,affiliation and inspection fee on colleges etc .By way ofexample the Guru Nanak Dev university, Amritsar raises 186.86 crore from internal sources(mainly fees) and 50 crore from governmentgrant with an overall income of 235.86 crore for (2016-17,Tribune 2016).Whileinternal resource generation to an extent is desirable but public educationshould not become unbearable for parents and students. The civil societyactors, academics and policy making community need to intenselyscrutinize/audit the internal governancestructures in universities and more sothe state universities. There is need for internal governance in universitiesand in their governing bodies so as to inject innovation and professionalexpertise in decision-making. The line of demarcation between a public andprivate university must remain visible.
Fourth, within the matrix of public education we need tofind out the discrepancy in funding between state and the central universitiesto capture the direction and imprint of centralization on policy of highereducation. In 2015-16 roughly 56 percent of UGC plan grants and 88 percentnon-plan grants went to central universities. The state universities received19 percent and 4.3 percent respectively. The faculty teaching in peripheraluniversities would definitely like toknow as to whether state universities are less public compared to central universities as far asstudent intake and financial requirements are concerned and do policy plannersthink that state universities are marginal in the task of nation-building incontemporary India. Further, there is no magic that state grants are thesole route to make universities or other highereducation institutions more productive. Throwing money in the lap of publicinstitutions is not necessarily going to provide them road to excellence. Byway of an example there are two universities -South Asian university andNalanda which are funded by Ministry of External Affairs. In 2017-18 SAU withjust 522 students and 56 faculty members received Rs 260 crore and Nalanda during 2015-16 got 200 crore.Asagainst this the state university of Jadavpur with 10,000 students and 600faculty members got just 226 crore public funds. The little known fact is that private universities such as OPJindal, Ashoka, Shiv Nadar have been able to attract both foreign students andfaculty but government funded institutes/universities have miserably failed toattract the foreign teachers to their campuses. This issue needs to be debatedcomprehensively in order to generate positive feedback on the new policy.
The fact of thematter is that mandate of public education in India is to push boundaries ofknowledge and also to have thinking citizens .The Radhakrishan report on highereducation(1948-49) had amply stated that state aid must not be confused withstate control. These may be lofty goals by contemporary Indian standards but public education shall remain to benavigated by the citizens and their tax money. Some of above-cited concernsmust adequately factor in any further discussion on draft educational policy.
Prof Gull Mohammad Wani is teaching political science at Kashmir University